Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto’s recent decision to grant clemency to two high-profile figures convicted of corruption has ignited a firestorm of criticism, raising serious questions about political interference in the judiciary and the administration’s commitment to combating graft. The pardons of former Trade Minister Thomas Lembong and Hasto Kristiyanto, secretary-general of the opposition Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), have drawn accusations of executive overreach and undermined public trust in the legal system.
A Controversial Act of Clemency
On the surface, the clemency granted to Thomas Lembong and Hasto Kristiyanto, alongside amnesty for 1,178 other convicts, was framed by the government as a move for national interests and public unity. Lawmakers approved Prabowo’s request last week, a decision that sent ripples of discontent across the nation. Thomas, convicted last month for his role in a raw sugar import policy, and Hasto, found guilty of bribery related to a legislative seat appointment scheme, were the only two graft convicts among those pardoned, according to Law Minister Supratman Andi Agtas.
Supratman, a member of Prabowo’s Gerindra Party, defended the move at a press conference on August 2, 2025, asserting that granting clemency is the President’s constitutional prerogative. He emphasized that no legal requirement mandates waiting for a final court verdict before such decisions are made. “There is no need to doubt that the President and all of us in his ranks will continue to ensure that the fight against corruption remains unaffected by the granting of amnesty and abolition” he stated. 
Yet, the timing of the pardons—while appeals in higher courts were still pending—has fueled skepticism. Both cases have been mired in allegations of political motivation, with critics arguing that the convictions themselves were influenced by political agendas tied to the previous administration of Joko Widodo, who quietly supported Prabowo in the 2024 election.
Accusations of Judicial Interference
Anti-corruption watchdogs have been quick to condemn the pardons as a dangerous precedent. On August 5, 2025, organizations such as Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), Transparency International Indonesia (TII), and IM57+ issued a joint statement warning that the clemency constitutes executive interference in the judiciary. They argued that bypassing ongoing legal processes not only undermines the independence of the courts but also stifles opportunities to address systemic flaws through judicial rulings.
The groups highlighted the broader implications of such actions, noting that court decisions in graft cases often serve as critical reference points for legislative and governance reforms. When cases are resolved through amnesty or clemency, they warned, it effectively erases the legal proceedings, rendering the trials meaningless in the public eye. Local media referred to a joint Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), and Transparency International Indonesia statement which appeared to criticize “If the President continues to pardon corruption convicts, he risks enabling impunity, diminishing deterrence, and encouraging future violators to exploit claims of political persecution to gain public sympathy”.
Adding to the chorus of criticism, former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) investigator Novel Baswedan expressed concern on August 2, 2025, that the pardons contradict Prabowo’s stated commitment to eradicating corruption. He suggested that the move sends a message that anti-corruption efforts lack genuine support from both the government and the House of Representatives, potentially weakening public confidence in these institutions.
Political Motivations Under Scrutiny
The cases of Thomas and Hasto have long been viewed through a political lens. Thomas was named a suspect in October 2024 for a sugar import policy implemented a decade earlier under Jokowi’s administration. Despite the court acknowledging that he neither acted with criminal intent nor personally benefited from the policy, he was convicted last month. Legal experts and observers have pointed out that the timing of his prosecution—years after the policy was enacted—raises questions about selective targeting, particularly given his outspoken criticism of Jokowi’s government.
Hasto’s case is similarly contentious. Named a suspect by the KPK shortly after a new leadership—appointed in the waning days of Jokowi’s presidency—took office, he was convicted in July 2025 of bribery linked to a 2019 legislative seat scheme involving another PDI-P figure, Harun Masiku, who remains a fugitive. Hasto’s legal team has consistently claimed that his prosecution was politically motivated, a retaliation for his party’s opposition stance.
Public perception of these cases as politically charged has only deepened with Prabowo’s clemency decision. Many see the pardons as an attempt to reconcile with the opposition PDI-P, the only major party outside the ruling coalition. However, the government and PDI-P have both denied any political deal behind Hasto’s amnesty, maintaining that the decision was made in the interest of national unity.
A Rare Voice of Support
Amid the widespread criticism, some have defended Prabowo’s actions. Mahfud MD, a former vice presidential candidate for PDI-P and ex-coordinating minister under Joko Widodo, argued on August 2, 2025, that the clemency was justified given the strong political nuances surrounding both cases. In a video statement, he expressed hope that the decision signals a renewed commitment to upholding the law free from political influence. “The law must not be influenced by politics or politically motivated agendas” Mahfud stated, adding that he prays Prabowo remains dedicated to building a true law-abiding nation.
Mahfud’s support, however, stands in stark contrast to the broader sentiment among anti-corruption advocates and legal experts, who fear that the pardons could embolden future executive overreach. The debate over whether this act of clemency represents a genuine effort to heal political divides or a calculated move to consolidate power remains unresolved.
Historical Context and Future Implications
Indonesia’s struggle with corruption is not new, nor is the tension between executive power and judicial independence. Under Jokowi’s decade-long presidency, allegations of political interference in legal processes were frequent, particularly in cases involving opposition figures or critics of the administration. Prabowo, who assumed office in October 2024 following a contentious election, inherited a nation grappling with systemic corruption and a judiciary often perceived as vulnerable to political pressures.
The pardons of Thomas and Hasto evoke memories of past controversies, where clemency or legal maneuvers were used to shield allies or silence dissent. Anti-corruption advocates worry that Prabowo’s actions could signal a continuation of this trend, rather than the break from past practices that many had hoped for. The decision to grant clemency while appeals were still pending is particularly troubling, as it bypasses the opportunity for higher courts to provide clarity or set legal precedents that could strengthen anti-corruption frameworks.
Moreover, the pardons come at a time when public trust in state institutions is already fragile. Surveys conducted by local organizations in recent years have consistently shown widespread disillusionment with the government’s handling of corruption, with many Indonesians believing that powerful figures often escape accountability. By pardoning high-profile convicts, Prabowo risks reinforcing this perception, even if his intentions were to promote unity.
The Road Ahead
As Indonesia navigates this latest political controversy, the long-term impact of Prabowo’s clemency decision remains uncertain. Will it pave the way for reconciliation with opposition forces, as some suggest, or will it further erode public confidence in the judiciary and anti-corruption efforts? Legal scholars argue that strengthening the independence of legal institutions, as urged by watchdog groups, must be the administration’s priority if it hopes to restore faith in the rule of law.
For now, the debate over the pardons underscores a deeper struggle within Indonesia’s democratic system: the balance between political pragmatism and the principles of justice. As Prabowo’s administration moves forward, its handling of such sensitive issues will likely define its legacy on governance and anti-corruption—a legacy that, for many, is already off to a contentious start.
